Mediaboss Marketing

The term "alt-right" was coined in 2010 by socialist and white supremacist Richard Spencer and has never been an entity within the Republican Party or conservative movement. The term specifically refers to an "alternative right" in which the Republican Party is to be invaded in an attempt to use it for the advancement of socialist ideals.

However, Spencer's plan to alter the conservative movement has not worked well for him, as true conservatives have undoubtedly and expectedly refused to welcome Spencer into our circles. True conservatives do not respect Spencer, and he has never respected conservatives either, oftentimes referring to us as "cucks" and "the fake right."

Time and time again, Spencer proudly admits to wanting to "co-opt" the Right in order to achieve his own personal goal of replacing conservative values with policies he finds more ideal.

Spencer's ideal vision is to see the Republican Party riddled with socialism. As a national-socialist himself, the alt-right leader's two biggest problems with the Republican Party is our championing of individuality and free markets. Spencer would rather see conservatives engage in similar practices of the Left, such as focusing predominantly on collectivism and grouping people based on identity, such as skin color.

Spencer also advocates for a single-payer, universal healthcare system, believing that the United States could benefit from imitating "democratic socialist countries" in Europe.

Spencer has previously said, "I am not totally opposed to socialism, when done right I think we should have a national healthcare system."

Spencer criticizes free markets, agreeing with Karl Marx's statement that capitalism, not communism, is to blame for an "undifferentiated, alienated proletarian mass." Spencer stands for everything the liberty movement is against.

Socialism, whether it is adorned with a hammer and sickle or a swastika, is responsible for killing millions of people throughout history. It is fundamentally anti-American, and no political party in the country should ever invite it into their worlds.

Despite having horrible views on politics and ethics, Spencer does know what he's doing. The current political climate makes right now more than ever the best opportunity for Spencer to gain popularity by fueling his own publicity off the hysteria of the Left.

The hysterical Left make themselves vulnerable by jumping at every opportunity they can to label even the most mundane and non-radical ideas "fascism." By this premise, Spencer knows that when a real white supremacist becomes vocal, such as himself, that he will find himself effortlessly basking in massive amounts of free publicity given to him by the Left.

Leftists are making Spencer relevant in a society that at its core has no interest in anything the man has to say.

No decent person wants someone with radically fringe positions to have influence in our society, not even in the slightest. Therefore, the Left should join conservatives in ignoring Richard Spencer and this ridiculous "alt-right" movement, because it is impossible to be heard when nobody is listening to you.

Alana Mastrangelo is a political activist and writer.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Continue reading here:
The alt-right is not truly right - Washington Examiner

Socialist thugs violently clashed in Charlottesville this weekend. One group railed against bigotry. The other group embraced it. The anti-racist group departs more radically from their ideological forebears even if they manage to convince everyone that the nationalist-socialists they brawl with represent the real imposters.

The history of American socialism, until fairly recently, was a history of American racism.

New Harmony, the 1820s Indiana commune founded by the man credited with coining the term socialism, banned African Americans. Karl Marx, Margaret Sanger, and John Reed all used the N-word to refer to black people in correspondence. The Communist Party supported the internment of Japanese and relocation of Japanese Americans during World War II. W.E.B. Du Bois, kicked out of the NAACP he helped found by embracing black separatism in the 1930s, traveled to the Third Reich in 1936 only to return to the United States to pen an article entitled The German Case Against Jews that uncritically repeated justifications for thepersecution of Jews by Hitler.

Victor Berger, the first member of the Socialist Party elected to Congress, openly endorsed white supremacy.

There can be no doubt that the negroes and mulattoes constitute a lower racethat the Caucasian and indeed even the Mongolian have the start on them in civilization by many thousand yearsso that negroes will find it difficult ever to overtake them, Berger opined. The many cases of rape which occur whenever negroes are settled in large numbers prove, moreover, that the free contact with the whites has led to the further degeneration of the negroes, as well as all other inferior races.

Appeal to Reason, the most successful publication in the history of the American Left whose pages gave birth both to Upton Sinclairs The Jungle and Eugene Debss presidential campaigns, unabashedly maintained that socialism meant separatism and capitalism meant integration. The publication that eclipsed the million-reader mark in its brief history informed subscribers that while private ownership of industries mixes up the races, reducing blacks, whites, and yellows to a common levelsocialism would separate the races and lift them up to the highest level each were capable. The weekly, using ALL CAPS to emphasize its outrage, complained: IN THE SIGHT OF THE CAPITALIST ALL WORKERS LOOK ALIKE.

Some socialists (Norman Thomas, to name one), like many Democrats and Republicans, fought against racism. But nothing inherent within the ideology of socialism meant that its adherents reflexively stood up against racistsat least when it really, reallymattered. When racism inspired lynchings, blocked blacks from the ballot box, and forced African Americans into separate schools, theaters, and bathrooms, socialists were racists. Once racists became punchlines and human curios appearing on Geraldo Riveras daytime talk show and people who looked right and left and right before telling jokes, socialists embarked on a crusade against bigots.

Perhaps some socialist, surely conducting research on the racism endemic to the political foes of his creed and not reading Breitbart for pleasure or edification, stumbles upon this article (or gets sent it by some vile conservative as a taunt) and subsequently reorients the Talibanesque vandalism campaign to targets closer to the hearts of the people who have lost their heads over statuary.

Exactly when do the socialists tearing down monuments to the Confederacy begin tearing down memorials of socialists? A controlled implosion of the 26-story W.E.B. Du Bois library at the University of Massachusetts? A hammer to the bust of Margaret Sanger in the Smithsonians National Portrait Gallery? A bonfire for all extant copies of the hagiographic Warren Beatty-Diane Keaton Reds biopic of Jack Reed?

Not likely. Some racists are more equal than others.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

More:
Flynn: When Do Anti-Racist Socialists Begin Vandalizing Monuments to Racist Socialists? - Breitbart News

THE recent General Election, which reduced the Tories to a minority government and put UK Labour some 50 seats behind them, has caused shock waves across politics not least in the movement for Scottish independence.

Recent weeks have displayed a range of in-fighting, name-calling, political confusion, bile and in some cases simply personal posturing. This has including attacks on Yes backers who voted Labour, criticism on the topic of who is or isnt acceptable within the Yes camp and how all this should be reported.

This culminated with a series of columns from various Yes luminaries arguing that the Yes movement is really alive and well and citing in one case as a football team the talents in its ranks.

Incidentally, unlike the Scotland teams which used to actually win in the glory years, it was fairly light on working-class talent.

It is probably necessary here to set out two truths about this spat and what it tells about the politics currently facing supporters of independence today.

First it simply flies in the face of reality to suggest that the broad, pluralist mass Yes movement built around the 2014 referendum still exists today. It clearly does not.

Of course a movement exists but it is a changed formation to that which so closely challenged the power of the British state in 2014. Most notably the mass upsurge in support moving from Yes as a movement to the SNP as a party radically changed the dynamics and nature of the former.

Apart from sporadic demonstrations, the public face of Yes has merged with that of the SNP and has, in turn, become linked in the public mind with the fortunes on that party. Bluntly, this has at best becalmed the independence movement and evidence suggests it has set it back.

In place of the vibrant, optimistic mass movement of 2014 which was the Wind that shook the Unionist Barley, Yes is now equated with an ultra-cautious SNP government which looks increasingly like a centrist formation stifling the real thirst for radical change of 2014.

The second truth flowing from this is that in place of being part of a movement, prominent non-SNP independence supporters are now largely to be found in the columns of newspapers, websites and cyberspace where in turn they rehearse the same hand-wringing about when to hold another indyref, how wicked the Unionists are etc.

The evidence strongly suggests that the public, while still winnable for the independence case, isnt sharing those concerns and is seeking a politics which answers the big questions in their lives such as housing, jobs, wages and health.

Of course, work has been done on how many aspects of these issues would be tackled under independence, but they need to escape from the discussion seminars and think tanks into the public space inhabited by the ordinary citizens.

Independence must again become the concerns of far greater numbers than todays stalwarts.

This urgent need was spotlighted by the results in the recent election where, led by the Tories, the Unionist block was given a free run by the SNP who parked yet again the independence issue while voters were showered by LibDem, Labour and Tory anti-independence propaganda leading to tactical voting.

Indeed, the brutal truth is that this toxic combination of SNP feebleness and Unionist boldness on independence has returned enough Tory MPs to keep Theresa May in power in Westminster.

But for the independence movement there is another potentially more pressing issue to deal with, in the shape of the impact of Jeremy Corbyn and his radical politics. No serious socialist can do other than welcome the impact of Corbyn, who is an honest and principled socialist and has played a key role in shifting public debate and placing socialist ideas on the policy agenda and challenging the market knows best mainstream.

It is hardly surprising in this context, then, that numbers of 2014 Yes supporters, hungry for social justice and change yet conflicted about Labours past, plumped for them as an endorsement of the Corbyn agenda.

Unsurprising but wrong. Voting Labour in Scotland had little to do with backing Corbyns socialist politics but everything to do with endorsing Dugdales strident no surrender line against even allowing Scots a vote on the issue.

This view is confirmed both by the relatively small growth in Scottish Labours vote share and by Corbyns allies in the Campaign for Socialism who warned that future Labour advance needs a left turn.

The choice for socialists seeking change is simple. Corbyn puts his faith in winning socialist change through winning a Westminster socialist majority and embarking on a British Road to Socialism. No such road exists in the world of reality.

The entire undemocratic indeed archaic Westminster set-up, with its unelected Lords, powers of the Crown in Parliament and its semi-democratic first-past-the-post voting system is a bulwark against change, not a road to it.

By contrast an independent Scotland, won by a mass Yes movement based on a democratic parliament, can generate momentum for real socialist change putting the needs of people and planet before the profits of an elite few.

For Yes supporters the British Road to Socialism, even with Corbyn at the wheel, will prove a diversion. We need to keep our eyes on the prize of independence as the key to change.

This article was originally published in the Scottish Socialist voice.

Visit link:
Ken Ferguson: Forget Corbyn, there is no British Road to Socialism only independence can deliver real change - The National

CNSNews.com

The Endless Bizarre Allure of Socialism, Part II CNSNews.com Socialism has a technical definition involving government ownership of the means of production and central planning of the economy. But most people today think socialism is big government, with business still privately owned but with lots of ...

Link:
The Endless Bizarre Allure of Socialism, Part II - CNSNews.com

And The War On Trump

I am increasingly of the opinion that the basis for the inflamed, visceral hatred of President Donald Trump in some quarters is neither his occasional vulgarity nor his propensity to toss out un-presidential insults, nor the misogyny and sexism that the left pretends to see in his every word.

Rather, its that his presidency has torn the veil off of the lefts inexorable and until recently largely obscured march toward a socialist America.

Trump has exposed and discredited many of the institutions and mechanisms the left uses to execute its fundamental transformation: The media, the entertainment industry and academia.

Furthermore, he is an unabashed capitalist, a walking manifestation of American achievement through commerce.

And for this, they despise him.

Health care is a pristine example of the battle being waged. Obamacare is collapsing. The GOP is too terrified to repeal it. Democrats know that its failure, particularly in the absence of legitimate free-market alternatives, will virtually ensure the single-payer system theyre now openly pushing.

Single-payer is a recipe for failure and abuse. (Exhibits 1 and 2: The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Services.) Except in relatively small, largely homogenous populations, collectivism fails because in the absence of financial incentives, more people want to receive things than want to make or provide them. The government must therefore insert itself into every transaction: You must make X. You can only charge $Y. You only get so much of Z.

Thus does single-payer health care morph from being a provision system to a rationing system. And those who control the rations control the people.

There is plenty historical evidence of socialisms disasters, most recently in Venezuela. Detractors will scoff: The Venezuelan government took over most private enterprise; theres no indication that such a thing would ever happen here.

However, socialist and communist regimes tend to expand not because they succeed, but because they fail.

Instead of admitting the collapse of a failing business model, the lefts impulse is to take it larger: We just need more money. We need higher taxes. We need the government to take control of more.

This produces larger, systemic failure, and more widespread misery. Then cometh the political oppression. To preserve the regime, it becomes necessary to silence anyone who complains or dares to point out the painfully obvious truth that these ideas destroy whatever systems they infect.

When no one in power will face reality, there are few options left, and they are almost always catastrophic: Civil war, revolution, anarchy. Failed policies. Collapsed economies. Political repression.

The examples are so numerous as to strain credulity: Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, China, Cambodia, East Germany, Angola, Somalia, the former Soviet Union. Hellholes created under siren promises that government would provide everything for free.

So much suffering, and so avoidable.

But were not supposed to know any of that. Our educational system is supposed to be indoctrinating children to think that capitalism is greed and collectivism is compassion.

The media willingly conspires to keep us ignorant. (The New York Times is running a series that The Federalist author Robert Tracinski rightly decries as an effort to rehabilitate Communism. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were well-intentioned people trying to build a better world out of a crisis?) Millionaire entertainers dutifully spout politburo propaganda in exchange for escaping the accusations of hypocrisy that should accompany their sky-high incomes and royal lifestyles.

As middle-class voters are realizing, Democrats have been pushing their party in this direction for decades. Republicans (at least at the congressional level) suck their thumbs and pretend it isnt happening, whilst falling for the bipartisanship ploy that makes them ineffectual fools even when as now they hold political power.

Donald Trump may not have intended to be the man who pulled down the curtain, but pull it he did. He has become the face of the opposition to the plans of the cultural elite. For that he must be destroyed.

Ultimately, however, the lefts war isnt with Trump. It is with those of us who see socialisms failures, and who refuse to sit back and watch while our freedoms are dismantled and our country is destroyed.

2017 CREATORS.COM

LAURA HOLLIS

comments

More:
Socialism's Failures - The Daily Record (registration)